community seeking to impose its will on budget yemenis, not true. in fact, the yemenis themselves want a change. second, the allegation that we are pursuing a very narrow counterterrorism agenda wrong because the comprehensive programs is a denial of that. third, that we would somehow neglect the performance of him in, from coming to that because people spoke very plainly about the need for the reform and for this was a one off, that is the fourth delegation also wrong because there will be a real follow-up and i think it is important people understand these points. ..

actually through 2008 and 2009, in all my talks in the arab world more widely, the significance in dangers of the situation in yemen came through. is a tap dancer on yemen strategy was updated in

september of 2009 which is not just about aid but also about a series impeachment on the ground so i think it is wrong to say this is the beginning of the process. we are in the midst of a process that is becoming increasingly urgent and that is why i think you see the level of engagement that existed today. >> secretary clinton, the foreign minister amacom as well. you talked but it about the need for a cease-fire and the instability that is cost in yemen by the hutus in the north. the get any assurances from the yemeni government that they might follow in saudi arabia's bephenyls to agree to a cease-fire and then in connection with that is there any sort of unifying the assessment of what the threat is in yemen and saudi arabia of relief think this threat comes from iran that the u.s. government doesn't seem to share that and it seems there needs to be some sort of kind of coming together on but the threat is so everyone can have a common approach.

thank you. >> jay, first of all we were pleased by the announcement of the cease-fire between the saudis in the. that should lead we hope to broader negotiations end a political dialogue that might lead to a permanent end to the conflict in the north. it is too soon to tell and i think that is the attitude and i will let the minister to speak for myself but i think that is the attitude of the yemeni government as well. they want to tested and work with the saudis and try to figure out if there is a way forward to resolve the conflict with the hutus. on the issue concerning outside interference, i spoke about this in my meeting with minister kirby on a bilateral basis. we heard more about it today. there are a lot of issues in yemen that resulting conflicts,

and there are a lot of internal and externals forces at work. one that i think has not gotten the attention it needs is that there are 800,000 somali refugees in yemen. think about the instability that causes, so we are trying to find a common basis for looking at all of the internal fritz and the external outside interference. i don't want to prejudge it and i respect the yemeni government and others assessments as to what they think is occurring right now, but the bottom line for me is that there is a multiple layered set of conflicts that are caused by many different factors, and i can only end with pieno one statement by one of the gulf ministers who said look, did the

conflicts caused the development problems in yemen or did the development problems caused the conflict? i am not sure we will answer that question any time soon. what i am absolutely confident it of is that we have to address both. >> let me comment if i may. yemen government has actually announced previously five cease-fires, and with every cease-fire waylayed only to get to the hutus prepared themselves now we are prepared for a cease-fire. if they accept the conditions, and that is to stop attacking, to surrender to their heavy arms and fortifications, and according to the constitution, he will deal with all their grievances, whatever grievances they have can be dealt with through dialogue.

but, and less they accept the conditions of abandoning insurgencies, where only going to repeat the previous five mistakes. in awe and. >> let me tell you, sometimes probably you don't read things properly. we said he spent four years and he spent in yemen one year. where did the declaration take place? >> i always know that it is very unwise to take an additional question. [laughter] and this has proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. because the harmony and unity

that has prevailed doesn't find it easy third way in which to answer this question. but, i think it is important that i say in all seriousness that all of our evidence led us to make the very serious statements that we did about the radicalization that took place. we have gone in some detail to the time attempting, the attempted bomber spent in london. we are very vigilant about the way in which british higher education and other institutions have these. we have seen no evidence it was used in that way in this case but obviously we kp very close eye on it. there is one further point though, and this is i think we are the discomfort that you sought to apply to your question can maybe be avoided.

and that is as far is coming in the end none of the three countries on this platform are interested in pointing their fingers at each other about where things might have gone wrong in the past. every single country sitting on this platform wants to take responsibility because the truth is that global jihad knows no boundaries and recognizes no-- borders and we in the united kingdom are extremely vigilant about marone situation. we are resolute and offering no complacency about how we combined the virtues of an open society with one which is able to defend itself and insure defense of other free societies of around the world. and that is something which there are more and more partners engaging in this process. we in the u.k. will learn auto lavar lessons in an open way with their partners. i'm delighted the government of yemen as always the government of yemen is committed to do that with us. >> i just want to add one other point because i think the

question in the 21st century may be somewhat beside the point, with all due respect. the role of ideology knows no boundaries or borders. the internet is an increasingly effective recruitment and radicalization tool. we have evidence that a number of those who have been arrested, engaged in or having committed terrorist acts in the united states in the last month were in communication with persons on the internet. they never met the necessarily in person but they were highly influenced by their messaging. i gave a speech about a week ago really defending strongly internet freedom but i also pointed out that the internet is a neutral tool, and increasingly

we are having to face, whether it is the u.s., u.k. or yemen, the threats coming from beyond our borders that cannot be, as david said come up ginned on any event in a particular place. it is an accumulation of influences, and i think we have to look more thoughtfully at this and i think there is a role for the free media to play because we need a countermessage to young people, who for whatever reason, seek out these voices of the extremism, and i think that is something that governments need help in doing on both a technological basis and in terms of the media's narrative. >> we will definitely take another question but thank you very much indeed. [laughter]

>> on tomorrow morning's washington journal we will get your reaction to president obama's stated the union speech. we will talk to members of congress from around the country and a number of reporters about the speech and the president's agenda. washington journal begins each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span.

>> the haitian ambassador to the u.s. was at the american enterprise institute today to talk about development in rebuilding efforts in haiti. this is 45 minutes. >> the haitian catastrophe has produced an outpouring of sympathy and charity from throughout the world. this afternoon be will all join in expressing our most sincere and profound condolences to the ambassador raymond joseph and aller haitian friends for the great tragedy they have endured in the recent weeks. we also recognize a contribution

that many international organizations and i would have to say particularly the u.s. military is making at this very crucial hour. some of them are here in the audience and we thank them for the work they are doing. the television images of bruce and they show patients at their most desperate. that anyone who knows haiti would never consider their situation hopeless. because, hopelessness is not part of their reality. precisely because that is not the way they see the world and around them. in spite of the excruciating poverty in which most of them live we know haitians to be remarkably resilient and industrious people. when they are given the opportunity to succeed, they do that. haitian immigrants from brooklyn to south florida are hard-working and productive neighbors. we know that. the problem is in their homeland their brothers and sisters are not given half a chance to prosper. as i have said many times before, one cannot pay anyone

less than you can pay haitian for an honest day's work in this hemisphere. but we have not seen foreign capital rushing into haiti in recent decades, because corruption and a predatory state have made it extraordinarily difficult to do business there in the past decades. what a difference the rule of law makes. haitians, who domestic gpa-- i am sorry, gdp per capita is one sixth of their dominican neighbors. the haitians state share the blame brinkley for keeping the poor country men trapped in an exploited economic model and self-destructive political system. the sad fact is life in haiti was virtually unsustainable even before port-au-prince tumble to the ground. as my agi colleague tom donnelly has observe the haitian catastrophe is more than a

natural disaster. it is a political one indications in the international community failed to respond effectively now today's crisis will come pound hastie's misery and present problems for the united states will continue for decades to come. this afternoon a panel of experts will discuss the challenges of dealing with the media recovery and reflect on opportunities for haitians to rebuild the country in which the people are empowered to improve their lives and have a stake in their country's future. we are honored to have one of haiti's best with us this afternoon to deliver keynote remarks on behalf of his people. ambassador raymond joseph who is first and foremost a journalist, has been fighting for is people since he was a teenager. it the age of 19 he founded a monthly newspaper called raise of light which still publishes today. in the 1960's, he became a well-known voice against the

dictatorship radio broadcasts to haiti from new york. hit show was dubbed the 6:00 mass because it had airways said 6:00 a.m. and was not to be missed. on a less worldly plain, besser joseph translated the first new testament and psalms and haitian creole under the auspices of the american bible society in october 1960. in the 1970's and 80's he was at "the wall street journal" in new york as a financial writer. he also co-founded along with his brother, leo, the crusading publication, haiti observatory, the first commercial haitian weekly, which is still remains the premier organ of the haitian community abroad. but at various times the last 20 years governments have called ambassador joseph into diplomatic service. in 1990, he was appointed

haiti's sergeant of affairs in washington and his country is representative of the oas. for helping with the first democratic elections in 1990 he returned to the haitian observer tore bore he remained until he was called back to washington in march 2004 where he is currently ambassador to his country. raymond joseph is a graduate pastor from the moody bible institute in chicago. he holds a b.a. in anthropology from whapeton college in illinois and a master's degree in social anthropology and linguistics from the university of chicago. i consider it a personal honor to welcome our friend, ambassador joseph, here this afternoon. [applause] >> ambassador noriega, thank you for such an introduction. you are being generous with me. for the sake of full disclosure, i have to let you know that when

i came back to washington in 2004, he is the person i was dealing with in the state department, so i feel at home again, especially since i see a few of my friends in the front row here. thank you. guess what? i am going to start with something that will make you think about what is happening in haiti. think of washington d.c.. you wake up, it is flat and. the white house is no more, the senate, the house of representatives and the office buildings including the congress building, the supreme court, the

banks are flats and, police headquarters no more. the fbi is not there, no restaurants. do you think that all of a sudden you will have seen president obama on the street the next day? well, that is what happened in port-au-prince. i am saying this because soon after the 7.0 magnitude earthquake hit haiti, there was no functioning government there, but i'm wondering, had that happened in a city like washington, where you have better structure, where you have

everything almost, very modern, do you think of all these buildings went down, flat and like that he would spring up? perhaps he would have somebody talk about it. but, it would that be only washington dc. i don't know what happened to the cia, all of these things. i am asking you to be a little patience with haiti, but having said so, i think ambassador noriega said something in his introduction that is fitting. haitians are very resilient i even see a silver lining in what happened on january 12th.

on april 30th, 2004 i wrote a column for the now defunct new york sun, and i had one phrase there, a sentence, port-au-prince is a mammoth catastrophe waiting to happen. i made that comment because coming from the air in the american airlines, i was looking at the city, the that i had left 13 years earlier and i saw all of these match boxes over the hills. and, the mountain is the backdrop to port-au-prince mount hospital was disfigured, and i wrote to, unless something is

done immediately, big chunks of this city will be gone into the caribbean sea. at the time i did not see an earthquake. haiti, being in the hurricane ali, i saw a major hurricane that would have wiped all of these flimsy of boats into the sea and would have caused a major catastrophe it didn't happen that day. at that time, i said and the wrote, we should decentralize port-au-prince. this republic of port-au-prince should be no more. but you know politicians could

not do it. one politician tried to demolish some of these shanties, and he fell. that was leslie-- he was there for a few months. i said, i see a silver lining. of the silver lining is that what this city planners, what the politicians could not do, nature, or if you will, god as somebody has said, did it in less than a minute. porter prince schuck, and the whole structure came down like a house of cards. and do you know what the people are doing? they are moving out of port-au-prince into the hinterland for good they are

going all the way north. that is the map of haiti like this. that is port-au-prince right here and this is-- they are going all the way appear across from cuba, moving as far away from port-au-prince. i am warning them, it don't take the boats. because that is what happened in the past. however, no whiff what nature has done in haiti, i say we should learn and we should start keeping the population out in the countryside where they belong, and streamline port-au-prince if they start to build again, and billed according to codes, because this earthquake is the second 100 year, and the third major earthquake in haiti in over 250

years because there was one in the 1800's, 1848 that wiped out the northern part of haiti. so we are in the frontline, and we have to build differently from the way we have been building in the past. so much for what happened that you want to know what is happening now. sense fear earthquake hit, and there were no officials around, i quickly went to my friends at the state department come as something that would have done when you were there the next day. i had to assume some responsibility for my people, and ask the american officials for certain things. the first i ask for control of

our airport. there was really chaos at the port-au-prince airport in right away, the u.s. responded. with the southern command that took over and put some order. we ask for help with communications, because we could not communicate with anybody. again, the u.s. military came and helped. we ask for the first responders and for the u.s. comfort. the u.s. comfort was not close to haiti. of the u.s. sent for cutters, navy cutters to take its place and it would arrive by the 22nd of january. it is derived by the 25th, and today the u.s. comfort is doing a great job as a floating hospital. the french also have set up a hospital. we have received support from

all over, crossing lines of ideology like venezuela, with whom some of us have some difficulty. they sent in 225,000 barrels of fuel of all kinds right away. and cuba that has doctors, reinforced their doctor unit in haiti. israel, all the way from israel, sent first responders. iceland, argentina sends hospitals, field hospitals. i had better not continue because i will-- i could not name them all. i think that is part of the

silver lining i am talking about. people haven't been talking about haiti and when they talk about haiti it is only in negative terms. the most, the poorest country in the western hemisphere or the most violent-- the past four years we have dealt with the violence and off the front pages with the violence. we don't talk about the good things happening, and now the worst happened and everybody is speaking about haiti. everybody is focused on haiti. everybody should have been focused on haiti a long time ago. because, haiti is the second

independent country in the western hemisphere, the second only to the united states. in a you know for there were two independent countries, kati, the united states first and haiti. and i ventured to say that haiti helped the united states to be what it is. you can ask your questions later on. but, were it not for haiti, you probably would be speaking french on the west side of the mississippi now. the 13 states that formed the louisiana territory, we in haiti helped it happen by defeating napoleon's troops there in haiti and they couldn't continue on to the northern territories. but normally the united states gains from us. venezuela, grand colombia including colombia, and venezuela and ecuador.

the let from haiti with men, weapons and boats to live in those places. and, to show his gratitude to haiti, did venezuelan flag, the haitian flag with the yellow band on top. but that was a bad example. black slaves a rising up against the white masters and beating them, even though we benefitted the united states from meds and even that we benefit to all of south america. you shouldn't do that. for 60 years haiti was under embargo and i say if you want to know how haiti got support, go look at its beginnings. i am not going to assault the leadership of haiti also that his been predatory. i have been fighting against

them since i can remember. but, a new day is coming to haiti and it began back in 2006 with the election of the president to one with about 51% of the vote and to turn around to the 49% that were not with him, that were his opponents and from the 49% he got some good ministers for his cabinet and form a unity government. were it not for that, the food riots of 2008 would have seen the government topple. were it not for that, the problems with the four hurricanes in three months would have also toppled. haiti has reached political

stability. i was not part of president raval's cadre of france. he called a mutual friend in new york and he said i want you to call your ambassador friends, and i saw this spirit of unity that gave us independence because that is how we won our independence. win warring bans for fighting the french right and left and the party got together in 1803, six months later we got rid of the french. today, with this spirit of unity coming back in our time of distress, with the support of the international community the likes of what they see here i have no doubt that he will make it but we will sit-- the right way. we will see to it that they

haiti that is going to be rebuild will be-- no longer can we afford this disorder of the anybody taking to pieces of bricks here and a piece of wood there and setting up the shack. and forming his own street. no more. so i am asking you, our friends, all of you who have come to our support now to please stay with us because we are going to be off the front pages very soon. however, katie's rebirth will take some time and i am counting on you, on you to keep us going. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you ambassador. dam bester is agree to take some questions. i would ask that you wait for the microphone when you pose your question and identify yourself and your organization. i will start what you get your question, your first question. ambassador, what is your advice for including the building of haiti up in terms of political institutions and democracy? there is a transition that is expected to the presidential election set are supposed to be held very soon. what is your advice specifically about the election of the national assembly and president in the broader political renewal? >> you know, we have had elections for the house of deputies, the equivalent of your congressman and congresswomen in february. i don't know what decision has been made yet, with the

elections will be going on for all the congress and also for two-thirds of the senate. i think that there is a new spirit in haiti of inclusion. and, we have heard a lot of things that some parties were excluded, but really no party was excluded. and i wish and i think that is going to happen, that this election coming up will start building on what we had before so we can strengthen our institutions. one institution that has been strengthened and people don't pay any attention to it and we did it consciously is the

security. when i came to washington in 2004, there were only 2500 policemen and police women for the whole country of 8.5 million people. you must admit that haitians are the most docile people in the world because new york city has the same population. 8.5 million do you know how many policemen and police women they have there? 45,000 plus the state police they can colin, the fbi. katie has 2500 policemen. it is a long story on how we got to 2500 policemen because it used to be in the area of 7,000 that was broken down. since then, the police is that 10,000. we lost 300 during the earthquake. but, we have done a pretty good job in creating a secure

environment. the other part that needs work, and we have to work on it to create that institution, is justice. the justice system and haiti is too slow and is not impartial enough. that we have to work on. financial institutions, they talk about corruption in haiti and i won't go look at the list where we are in the international list of the most corrupt country, but nobody has said anything about the work being done in whitling out the correct that have the unit in the commerce department. nobody talks too much about what we have done in the past four years in streamlining the

process of establishing business in haiti. it used to be over 280 days to establish a business. now we have brought it down to two months. because we have a one-stop shop, and that makes for less corruption. little by little, i think we will put it together. what gives me a lot of confidence is that you have a leadership that is listening. >> thank you very much ambassador. we have a question. please identify yourself and your organization. >> thank you mr. ambassador. i worked at the swedish embassy here in washington. i was going to ask you about the timeframe. i heard today state secretary clinton saying something about ten years. we are in there for a long time and you talked about this silver

lining so what would you say about the timeframe for the international community to stick with hagee? >> i could not give you a specific timeframe. you know, in the past the united nations-- they have had 13 missions in haiti since 1991. this time they came in 2004 and the united states-- the united nations said we are not going to repeat the same mistake that we did before and we are going to stay. in the first two years we had a lot of problems with some. but this last time when the renewal of the mandate of the u.n. came out, there was no dissent. and i think people in the international community have come to realize that they are

putting a timeframe of five, ten years is the wrong way. it is almost like the people who were talking about iraq and afghanistan, how many months before we leave? it did not take five or ten years to put haiti where it is. a began with someone elected in 57 and the country continue down. so if it took all these years to put it where it is today, i think it is going to take a little time for it to get where it is. i don't mean the international has to be there all the time but it least to accompany us to pull together, so i can i give you a timeline. >> thank you.

over here. >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. my name is rosemary. the president for hope for tomorrow. sorry ambassador for all that happened. we are with you, you know that. i just want to put a comment on resettlement with the patients. we have come up with a strategy on temporarily sheltering women and children in haiti so what we are trying to do is see that women in haiti and the children are somewhere. what are you doing with the children that they are being taken away, and women. we want haitian children to remain in haiti with the haitian

people and that is why we are looking at this strategy, especially women who can take care of children. and said it just being taken away, tomorrow they are on the street fighting people. what will you phillipi helping with the history of fighting and are sold. would you take that into consideration when you were sitting in your office this afternoon? thank you very much. >> thank you very much. i know i have gotten credit in some places especially from the governor of pennsylvania that i had helped to get children out of haiti and some people think i am helping and sending all the haitian kids out. no. it didn't happen like that. what i did was to find out the

children that were in the process of adoption already, whose papers had been readied but they were waiting for passport and visas, and i told the governor of pennsylvania, i found out in this orphanage you are talking about, there are about 28 in the orphanage had 54 kids. all 54 came to the american embassy and those who had been already approved, said they were not going to leave until all of them left. well, it didn't happen like that. only those who were processed, who had been processed already left because i said haitian children are not cattle. we are not going to allow them to just leave like that. so, there is a myth that they

are coming in and grabbing haitian children and leaving with them. no, we are not doing that in the organization that is working with children, i am all for it. my wife has an organization that is doing exactly that. she organized it and had chosen a city which has been flat and too and guess what? the hospice that she had chosen was one of the few buildings left standing. and, if you need to find out more about what we are dealing with children and women, i ask you to see me afterwards and i will give you a card. i will put you in touch with the people working on that. no, we don't want the children to be just going like that. >> we will take this one and then i will go over here. >> my name is carl carter.

i am with the universal human rights network. one of the things that concerns us is the pictures of mass graves, and what assistance can be provided to haiti for coffins for those who have died that maybe we could load on containerships or otherwise or even c-130's so they they can start and interment process for those people who have died instead of just the pictures of the bodies themselves but the people or they could have these tebbit coffin for their loved ones. thank you. >> it pains me also to see pictures like that. and, one of the requests i made to the state department and to the white house also, because they call to find out what we need for body bags.

and, i can report that i don't know how many, but thousands and thousands of body bags have been delivered to haiti so that that picture of people thrown in the graves would not be. from there, the caskets, it is it little more expensive but at least i made my plea for the people to be entered singly. i wish they would hear me. >> david post, attorney from california. ambassador, although we have not been in touch for over half a century i have a vivid memory of your rifle from haiti as a college student, a strong

energetic athlete, a strong discipline students, a passion for the people of haiti and a commitment to them. the united states and haiti and the business community here are fortunate to have you in this position at this time. to questions. one, i see you have studied as a social anthropologist and you have worked many years for "the wall street journal." my questions are one, how do we know that by contributing aid to haiti in a massive way we are not contributing to a welfare culture, a culture of dependency , perpetuating what i understand from the media is a basket case, a fourth class nation?

icesave this supported go and second, what can our government to be on dollars and eight to facilitate american business investment in haiti? >> thank you sir. if you know the haitians, you know they are one people but doesn't believe-- is the people who doesn't believe in welfare and look at the statistics. haitians to immigrate to the united states all are hard workers and you won't find too many on the welfare roles. you may find some but you won't find many on the welfare roles. haitians like to work. they worked to work and they are hard-working. what happened in haiti is that there is no job to be done.

that is the reason, when i came to washington in 2004 i came with an idea, make it a slogan. haiti is open for business. and, with that slogan, i worked with the congress to get the whole act passed. the republican-- gave me hope one come up for three years with quite a few restrictions and he told me that was in june 2006. he said you know what, the democrats might win this fall and that the democrats when i think they will withhold hope and come up with something else. because they want to show that

we did something. i said really? that left his office and i said thank god for this-- i picked up my cell phone and i called my friend, charlie rangel that i knew would be chairman of the ways and means. i said charlie, chairman thomas just gave me hope for three years. he said but, he told me that if you win in november and he thinks you might wind were going to withhold it. he said no, no re, we wouldn't do that. and when beacom income if we come in as he says i will give you something better. sure enough, the democratic congress gave me hope for ten years, with fewer restrictions and what i hope it will do, it began to do that, opened

factories in haiti. already 25,000 new jobs have been created before the earthquake hit. we were looking at between 75,100,000 jobs created from hope. haitians don't want a handout. they want a hand up. that is all we want, and did you know that just the first day, before the hurricane, i mean the earthquake hit the "miami herald" had a long story about the hotel-- and haiti. the day before, there's great kids, the 11th of january, pbs had a major piece about 15 minutes long on haiti and the development that it presented. it is not for my beautiful eyes.

vectorial carribean, that cruise line teamed up with the haitian government to build a 50 billion-dollar pierre in norton haiti. and broadband its largest cruiser, the oasis of the seas, for its maiden voyage on the first week of december. yes, the investors with the help of president clinton had been looking at haiti and i think after a few more weeks, we will have more investors and that will come with jobs in haiti because that is what we need. we don't want-- we are not bakers in haiti. we are workers. >> excellent. i think there's time for one

more, one last question. >> thank you. my name is note with the school of the leadership in d.c. and my sincere condolences to unt your people. it seems to me give and your answer to the previous question we have a real opportunity do we envision the way that we have read develop developing countries and i am wondering if you can get a few specifics to us about the best way for us to do that in haiti? thanks. >> i think the best way to do with this starting with haiti. all the stakeholders sit together and work on a master plan. instead of everyone coming in and planting his little flagger, i am doing this year, i am doing this here without any court nation. i think he probably is giving the world, giving the united

states a chance. that is the silver lining, a chance of looking at development in the a regulated manner and also saying that everybody comes in at the right place. not detrick but he goes the same place doing the same thing. if we do it that way incoordination, in this spirit of the slogan that gave us haiti independents, in unity there is strength, we will get somewhere instead of the competition to better that one. i think that might be the best way and i still don't want to fight this spirit of entrepreneurship ago when it comes to entrepreneurs, let them fight but when it comes to development, let's not do--

thing willy-nilly. note, i think we need to have a coordinated plan. >> thank you very much ambassador for your time on behalf of everyone here we extend their condolences and we thank you also for your wonderful presentation. we commit to doing everything we can to help you and your country rebuild. thank you very much. t [applause] host: the former ambao

iraq has call on vester ryan corker the former ambassador to iraq and pakistan and now the university dean of the bush school at texas a&m joining us from there this morning. thank you sir we appreciate your time. >> guest: happy to be here. lescallet mr. with a front page of "the washington post" and get your reaction coming u.s. playing a key role in yemen providing data and weapons to the yemen government there in hopes to kill al qaeda leaders and other officials in that country. what you think of this effort?

>> guest: again i have no knowledge of the specific things we are doing now with yemen but i think this is consistent with what i would consider it prudent policy. we are in support of the yemeni government. we can't do this directly. we can't leave it. we have to assist them if this is going to succeed and it sounds to me like that is exactly what we are doing. >> host: help our viewers understand why yemen? what is happening in this country? what is happened leading up to the situation in this country? >> guest: yemen is a country that has faced a huge challenge, not just in the last few years ago for decades. there was not a strong central authority, the various tribes have tremendous levels of autonomy, and there is a rift between the north and the self of the country.

indeed at one point there were two separate states so there is a situation in which there is a tremendous amount of turbulence, of instability, of conflict at various levels and this is an environment in which groups like al qaeda and confined space and established operations. >> host: ambassador crocker in afghanistan if we can move to this country this morning, some other headlines on the situation there. here is that "new york times," u.s. wrestling with the prospect of offering olive branch to the taliban in the country and it says in the grand bargain is bound to be messy between u.s. allies, the government in afghanistan and the taliban there, and this is the headline in the "financial times." it says afghanistan finance minister has raised the prospect of involving the taliban across all strata of government debt of district and national levels as part of a plan for the integration in brokering peace. it goes on to say he is seeking

backing at the conference in london taking place tomorrow for reintegration plan that would cost between an estimated $200,000,000.1 billion. do you agree with this strategy and if so, why is it necessary? >> guest: broadly speaking, as general petraeus and i said a couple of years ago in iraq, you can't kill your way out of an insurgency. clearly military force plays a role. but, in the end, insurgency requires a whole arsenal of tools, including negotiation and accommodation and reconciliation. that is what we did in iraq. we used the hammer of military force to the surge, but we also engaged with really anyone who would talk to us. detrick of course is knowing which tool you need at which

time. i did not think a strategy of negotiation only with the taliban is going to be effective at all. but, here i think we are on the right policy track. i think the surge in afghanistan constitutes the hammer. you can bring that down on the rock of the taliban and their allies, and you start to open up some cracks and fissures. once that happens, then i think engagement and reconciliation makes sense and has a prospect of success. but, if your enemy thinks he is winning, he is not likely to be inclined to reconciliation or accommodation, so first we have got to change the strategic logic in afghanistan, as we did successfully in iraq. reconciliation and

accommodation. host: the use of money in this situation, bringing the taliban in, paying them to become part of the afghan government -- talk about that. why is that a strategy to use? guest: the taliban is not a government, not monolithic. it is various constituents with different motivations and reasons for being in this fight. we need to find different motivations and reasons to take them out of the fight. money, believe me, can help. we employed money in iraq as the awakening too cold. we offered jobs to young iraqis who may have been actually in the fight against a set one time. money to do things

in the fight against us. money to do things in the civilian sector and money to served as armed elements under iraqi and u.s. control. that would be in the fight against former allies. so again, reconciliation doesn't take place with your friends it takes place with your enemies and economic incentives can have a lot to do with reconciliation. >> host: general mike stanley to the cause stanley and mcchrystal said i think any afghan can play with the focus on the future and not on the past. what does he mean? >> guest: i think it's important to look the past precisely to understand what general mcchrystal may have met.

afghanistan's past is one of extraordinarily violence and turbulence not just since 9/11 that literally three decades after the soviet invasion of 1979. so, for many afghans and indeed most afghans, violence is all they have ever known, and what i think the general mcchrystal is talking about was think about a future that what nabil like the past. a future in which there was reasonable levels of security and stability and opportunities for a life that most afghans have ever known. >> host: what is the historical relationship between afghanistan and pakistan that americans need to understand in order to get a better understanding of what is happening in that region and the united states efforts? >> guest: it's a great question because afghanistan

cannot be understood or dealt with in isolation, and i think the obama administration has been absolutely right in having an afghanistan and pakistan strategy. incident leave the same thing we worked very hard on bearing the bush administration when i was ambassador to pakistan. a lot of borders and the middle east, the broad middle east are quite artificial drawn by colonial overlords often without regard to national and ethnic divisions on the ground. nowhere is that more the case than in afghanistan. the duran line so called john at the end of the 19th century was deliberately intended to divide

the pashtun population of that area. that presented security challenges then just as the present security challenges now. so this was a line drawn not to unify groups but actually to divide them. and that means that line has been highly porous ever since its inception. on the pakistani side of the line or the family at the minister the tribal areas. they are separate from the rest of pakistan because no central authority has a ever been able to control them, not the pakistani government today, not the british rush for the decades of their ascendancy of their. so, there is a huge challenge

that comes in part from the way the kuran line was strong for pashtu and again while they are the largest of pakistan's's ethnic groups there are in fact more pashtuns in pakistan and afghanistan. so again, a major, major challenge for the government of both afghanistan and pakistan. and for the united states and the other friends of both countries to help them move towards stability in this troubled region. and once again, anyone who thinks this can be done simply by the application of military force could all be more wrong. this will require all the instruments of power economic and social development, schools, clinics, employment

opportunities as well as the judicious application of force and will require these instruments over a long period of time. >> before we get phone calls i want to give your reaction to the associated press reported this morning that taliban says on the web the london conference which is taking place tomorrow in afghanistan will accomplish nothing. >> guest: that's exactly what i would expect taliban to say and the fact they said it would suggest to me they are indeed rather worried that it will accomplish something. host of the associated press is also reporting 11 suspected taliban milton's including two senior commanders have been killed in the air and ground assault by nato afghan forces in northern afghanistan. new york city, steve independent line. good morning. >> caller: good morning and thank queue for c-span's. thank you, ambassador. my question is a short one and i

will take my answer off the air. first, what is it said to saudi arabia and what is the contribution? >> this would be the contribution with respect to yemen or afghanistan or all of the above. >> host: i'm sorry, ambassador crocker he isn't with us anymore. >> guest: then let me just say generally saudi arabia is the largest and most powerful country on the arabian peninsula they play a role in all security and economic issues. saudi arabia of course is a member of the gulf cooperation council. the council does not include substantial interest.abia has a there are over a million yemenis

who were consult the area. we have seen recently is fairly significant conflict on the yemenis saudi border not including the yemeni government but a coalition of the yemenis tribes that have actually attacked into saudi arabia. saudi arabia and significant security concerns broadly speaking in the region and certainly with respect to yemen. they are a strong and close u.s. friend and ally and were consulting carefully with them as we consider the challenges that are now coming at all of us. celebes, americans and others from the soil. >> host: dennis on the democratic line.

good morning. >> caller: good morning. yes, ambassador, i'm going to try to be very simple. can you please take the opportunity to come clean with the american people and admit the bush administration used propaganda to launch the war and iraq regarding the weapons of mass destruction and the issue of yellow cake. sir, given the opportunity, now is the opportunity for you to come clean and straight to your record and let people know there are people who do believe the bush said ministration lied to us. >> host: ambassador crocker. >> guest: as the question suggests there are a lot of very strong views over with the united states did in iraq 2003 and the reasons for doing it. is i think a healthy debate and it's a debate that is going to go on for a long time.

there will be an unlimited number of ph.d. theses out of the great university and many others the will review this over time. but hey, you know what, my focus as a foreign service officer was with the challenges we faced once that decision was taken because once we crossed the line of departure for those of us involved in policy implementation of the debate is over. the country is committed and you can't rewind the tape. you can only go forward and certainly my time and efforts in iraq in 2003 and later as ambassador in 2007, 2009 were all directed at how we could ship them to develop the

situation going forward. i didn't have time to reflect on the past. lots of others will do that and as i said it is a healthy process but it's 2010 and almost seven years after the intervention. we have an obligation to our own country and our own interest to continue our engagement in iraq and to do everything we can to help the iraqi government and iraqi people bring their country to a stable place. >> host: investor crocker, are there lessons to be learned from the decision to go into iraq? >> guest: i look at this in a historical context. the middle east is a complicated region with a long and complicated history involving the west.

when hulett double whole stretch of the broad middle east from morocco in the west to pakistan on the east every single country with the exception of the center of saudi arabia has been occupied by at least one western army over the last 200 years and more. it conditions how they think about us and how they react to us and i think a lesson that i have observed over many years in this region is if you are contemplating major decisions and no decision is more major than they military intervention, you really have to understand the region in which you are proposing to intervene in men's own terms its history, its

culture, the areas around, how they will react to fully understand all those complexities and to understand that when you intervene militarily you are sitting in motion forces the will produce consequences you can't possibly foresee so you need to know as much as you possibly can and be ready to accept considerable amount of risk over the things that you don't understand. more narrowly we have learned a lot from iraq both before and after 2003. i think our process of developing intelligence estimates which are very important to policy makers has been considerably approved since

2002. >> host: los angeles, tyrone on the independent line. good morning. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm real angry -- how these jewish neocons want us to go in [inaudible] [inaudible]call >> guest: i haven't read that particular book. i'm sorry for your loss. one of the things i've done since i've retired at the end of april from the foreign service i've been engaged with goldstar families in my part of the country, the inland northwest, and i have agreed that our nation -- i have great admiration for their courage and

sacrifice of their loved ones. again, i think what we did and why we did it in 2003 is going to be debated for a very long time to come. but i am totally persuaded that we did not do at that israel's urging your jury see any dark conspiracies that the decision. >> host: clinton township michigan. dorothy on the republican line. >> caller: good morning. i get on tight and nervous sometimes but what i would like to ask the ambassador is the united states government's job is to protect us, the homeland. and coming from the department of homeland security and the number one terrorist threat to america is the right-wing extremist, the conservative party or anybody who opposes the

war or anything like that. and what did you think our country would be better served if our military was here to protect us and not spread throughout the world and the middle east like you said intervening all of this things and dropping drones on yemen and pakistan and innocent people and what ever. >> host: ambassador crocker? >> guest: you're absolutely right the primary duty of any administration is the security of america and the american people. that was true in the bush administration just as it is true in the obama administration. the challenge comes in figuring out how that is best done. in the will of the 21st century, where our threats come from non-state actors, groups like al qaeda it is a more complicated

process and difficult one in many respects than it was during the cold war era. but again, one thing i would say to all of the c-span viewers is think carefully when you use the word enemy and don't use it about our fellow citizens. this is a great country. it holds diverse opinions, many different viewpoints and the nature of democracy is that it is adversarial. that is as it should be. but i've been out in a part of the world where the enemies are real and they are actually trying to kill americans mom just shopping at each other in debates, so i've seen a close and personal what americans enemies look quite.

what we cannot do is demonize each other. a good debate is the essential to a healthy democracy but at the end of today we are all americans in this country, democrats, republicans and independents and sometimes we need to take a deep breath and reflect on that. >> ambassador crocker here's a headline from the new york times. iraqi commission bars nearly 500 candidates from parliamentary vote. one of the viewers in an e-mail phrases like this and iraq the maliki government recently purchased 500 names of the sunni candidates from the role of those who had run in the march parliamentary elections and this fewer would like you to comment on that. >> guest: it is the controversy over candidates for the parliamentary election in march as i think a good example of the challenges that lie ahead in iraq. iraq is not history's war buy any means.

the development of iraq and the challenges in iraq will go on for a very long time to come. and this controversy is i think one example of that. it's why the united states needs to stay fully engaged in iraq, increasing the that will be done by non-military means. but we do have to stay engaged. that was the whole thrust of the strategic framework agreement that we at the end of the bush administration that sets out literally a framework for our cooperation with iraq and a whole range of various. the was important to the bush administration and it is important to the obama administration in light of the vice president's recent visit makes that very clear. so, these are iraqi issues. the iraqi civil have to work

through an acceptable resolution to the current crisis. i think they will. but i also think that our engagement, our involvement helping them find satisfactory solutions is going to be key in this case and many others for years to come. >> host: san francisco john on the line for democrats. >> caller: es i wonder if the ambassador could comment on the act will cost of the iraq war backend the afghan war and just wondering if basically in the current budget we have huge deficits and wondering about how much the iraq in the afghan war are in lieu of these current deficits. basically the republicans did not tax this war and i believe

we are paying for this and i was wondering if the ambassador would like to comment on this. >> guest: the costs of both war are considerable and something we have to take seriously. earlier i commented on the things we need to think about before we engage particularly before we engage militarily and this question raises another good point which is as you contemplate the risks and costs of engagement you also have to consider what the risks and costs of disengagement might be. this was a plane general petraeus and i tried to make in our testimony before congress in 2007 that if you are tired of iraq, if you are tired of the cost and the treasurer and want to change course, then you have

to think very carefully about what the costs of that change could be and our point back in 2007 was that if we disengaged under those circumstances and iraq the costs could be astronomically higher both in dollar terms and in threats to security than the cost of sustained engagement and i would say very much the same thing about afghanistan. in afghanistan we have a recent historical look sample. we were heavily engaged in afghanistan in the 1980's not by conventional forces but engaged nonetheless in support of the anti-soviet chehab. when the soviets withdrew so did we. we ended our engagement and

associations. we moved away from pakistan which had been our most allied of allies as some predict and impose sanctions on them. we just walked away even though the conflict went ahead without dustin a different form. we saw of course in the 90's with the taliban taking hold in pakistan giving space to al qaeda it was literally the road to 9/11. so we are backhanded engaged again both militarily and afghanistan and economically, politically in pakistan. so, if we think this war is costing too much and me to and involvement we need to think about what would happen if the after serious and compelling to attack us at home once had a

clear field ahead of the mexican time. so, worse are expensive kirsten the lives of young men and women in the costs to the budget. the defeats in disengagement can be even more expensive and i think alice painful and expensive house our engagement is, increasingly less so in iraq because we helped bring that country to a better place but certainly in afghanistan the cost of disengagement would be far higher. >> host: dearborn heights michigan joe of the independent plan. >> caller: good morning. hell are you? >> guest: doing well. >> caller: three good. thank you for your service. i have a question may be so much as a comedy and would like your

opinion. i've been looking at a map of the questions in iraq, saudi arabia, afghanistan, and pakistan. with the strategic intervention of iraq and with saudi arabia being i'm assuming an ally to speak with our strategy and intervention in afghanistan and pakistan be setting up for lack of a better word hour chessboard for overall objective being iran could we comment that? >> guest: you're absolutely right to look at a map americans are truly great people but we have our challenges and limitations one of them is on geography so good time for all of us to take a look at the map of the broad middle east and see who's next to whom and what geography tells about politics

and options. in that region of course we are engaged in pakistan and afghanistan and we have a number of close friends and allies as you note saudi arabia and the other gcc states as well as the government of yemen. we need to listen carefully to our allies not only tell them what we want to do but to get their perspectives. they live in the neighborhood. they are directly affected and they have the views that can inform our own. first thing to do with friends and allies is listen to them. listen to the saudis, two old friends, listen to them about afghanistan, about yemen, about iraq and certainly listen to them mevel dayron.

we haven't had the opportunity to talk much about iran but clearly the irony in quest for a nuclear weapons capability is a serious threat to our interests and their region more broadly and i think when we look at the challenge and our options there are two options that began with an a, acceptance, accept that they are going to get a nuclear weapon and live with it and the other is attacked. i don't think either are particularly good options in the don't think our friends in the region to be there. so, i think the process that if the previous administration started and that the current administration is following of engagement, working with the international community, the

security council, the european union our interregional friends to do everything we can to make it clear the iranian nuclear quest is not an american problem that is an international problem, and to do everything we can to this incentivize the aryans to is exactly what we should be doing so it requires a painstaking and sometimes painful multilateral effort in the region and in the united nations and elsewhere but i think that's a standard gauge the best course to us. >> host: new augusta mississippi. carl on the republican line. >> caller: yes, ambassador crocker, and pleased to talk to you. it's an honor. i want to ask a question and my dates and times might be mixed up but if we hadn't gone into

iraq and taken the initiative to try to cut saddam hussein, in the years following in lebanon and israel were fighting and saddam hussein would have been in power with army in place don't you think that could have cost the catastrophic conflict if he were to get his threats? and this would have been needed thing if he were in place and the bush administration to kenneled of that equation and the one your answer to that. thank you. >> guest: that is a great question because what it does is focus attention on alternative forces of history. i think in many respects as we look back on the decision to intervene in 2003 critics of the intervention sometimes assume if

we hadn't done that everything would have been just fine. everything wasn't just fine in 2003. i was involved in washington that much of that debate and i recall clearly in 2002 for example we were looking at. we were looking at a saddam hussein regime that probably was the most evil government in the world since world war ii with exception of the pol pot regime. we were looking at a regime that had defined more than a dozen chapters seven security council resolutions which call on the international community to use all necessary means to achieve their fulfillment and was

therefore arguably the most defiant nation to the whole post world war ii international order since the u.n. was created. the sanctions regime were in trouble. people were tired of it. so we'll ever solves the intellectual honesty to consider what would have happened had we not intervened and it might have been a very difficult, dangerous and on pleasant process with saddam hussein enduring. but he has played well in the conflict between israel and hezbollah in lebanon? i'm not inclined to think so. saddam stayed out of previous eckert is relief flights.

he was at least smart enough to not get engaged when the israelis and the feet of lebanon in 1982, so i'm not sure that would have been an issue. but what i am sure of that had saddam hussein endured, his regime would have continued to do horrific things to his own population and to have post a very significant threat and risk to the region to the international community and the united states. we will never know what shape that risk might have taken but to be incorrect for us to assume if we just haven't gone into iraq in 2003 everything would have been falling in the region. the most definitely wasn't fine in the 80's during the iraq-iran

war and in 1990 when he invaded kuwait and what ever would have then it would not have been just fine at saddam hussein continued with a work. >> host: ambassador crocker, you didn't mention a relationship with al qaeda though had saddam hussein still been in power >> guest: when he have had a relationship with al qaeda? it is entirely possible. all i saw no evidence any relationship with al qaeda up to 2003 but he had shown in the past a remarkable flexibility in whose tactical allies were so i certainly wouldn't rule out that possibility. >> host: texas, linda and the democratic plan. >> caller: thank you very much for c-span. ambassador, i would like to ask

your opinion on the report put out by the department of homeland security and disseminated to the police forces to help the nation where they said right-wing conservatives, christian fundamentalists, returning to iraqi veterans for the biggest threat to homeland security and should be handled with care and were the worst terrorist threats of the homeland. >> guest: i haven't seen that report and frankly i would be a little surprised if if i did was exactly in those terms. you know, look america faces all kind of threats many of them are extra land some of them are domestic and we have to take them all seriously.

there have been attacks, horrific attacks in this country and the oklahoma city bombing as a case in point that were carried out by our own citizens but we always have to be careful to make a balance between security and the liberties that we prize as americans and you will see that constant tension within ann administration and within congress and that is as it should be. but again i would repeat what i said a little bit earlier. we have to be serious about serious threats. but what we can't do it really is demonize our political opponents by calling them part of a terrorist campaign were

aiding and abetting terrorism or whatever epithet is in play at the moment. it is analytically from the. it does huge injustice to our fellow citizens and clouds the issue. if we are using a very real issue of terrorist threats as a weapon in a political defeat we are taking our mind off and focus of the real threats out there. so not only to wheat on just the abuse fellow citizens and our own system, we are actually distracting ourselves from threats that are out in front of us. >> host: phoenix, steve on the independent line. >> caller: yes, mr. crocker, you mentioned some who stand was the most brutal and worst state

dictator in the world with the time. i would like to know who is now the worst and who we should attack now and dimension to the cost of war. could you explain if it is prudent to cut taxes when you are trying to fight a war and pay for soldiers coming back? thank you. >> guest: you pos in the first part of your question i think a very important point that americans need to reflect on and again i would be clear a i didn't say that the nature of the saddam hussein regime was in and of itself justification for armed intervention. i simply was trying to make the point that it was a horrific

regime and we should not assume everything would have been just fine in the world if only we had not intervened. more broadly, there are some other very oppressive regimes, and there are some very tragic examples of what can happen to innocent people when regimes are not checked. the darfur conflict would be a case in point, and also a humanitarian disaster. rwanda in the 1990's. so it is a question for americans. we hold to the universally deals that in our view apply to the entire world and not just americans. at what point should we

contemplate the use of our force for pure leipheimer humanitarian reasons. should we intervene militarily in darfur? should we intervene militarily in rwanda? i don't have answers to those questions but again there as we consider how we posture ourselves going forward in the 21st century the azar debates that we do need to have so that we may be would have done as a people in a little bit of emotional and mental preparation before the next crisis humanitarian or otherwise is on us and we feel compelled to make decisions on the spur of the moment. in terms of taxes and the funding of a conflict administrations have to make

those choices. war is expensive. they have to be funded in some way the decisions on when and whether to raise and lower taxes again are all a part of the debate administration's need to have and the american people need to be involved in. >> host: joining from arizona is dean of the republican line. >> caller: i wanted to ask mr. crocker along the lines of the other call first call i just watched on monday the british inquiry about iraq and their involvement in the war and they were safe in the fact in 2002 general tony frank and donald rell silda asked the brits to join in the war, to join the

american war and they said they could not simply because they had to have a vote on the house of commons but they were very concerned because they knew that saddam hussein had been shooting down their pilots in the no-fly zones. he had already developed long-range missiles which were mobile so that put them in more danger. they could shoot them down prior to the no-fly zone and the other problem they said they believed or at least we believed they were trying to prevent an attack on the u.s.. they said worse than mine 11 because the would-be chemical and biological. >> host: are you familiar with this? >> guest: i am familiar of course with the inquiry under

way in the united kingdom bond with all the details of it, but i think again with the caller was noting takes us back to what really was a very difficult decision at the time. saddam hussein was a threat to international peace and security. a dozen u.n. resolutions said some of. there had been efforts to shoot down u.s. and u.k. aircraft in the no-fly zones. so it was a dilemma at the time. we would face further such races and dilemmas going forward. again, i would hope the debate over iraq would rise above the

recrimination is going one way or another and focus a bit on process. we thought he did have weapons of mass destruction and that is what he was signaling. it's what are intelligence estimates told us. it turns out he didn't, but that wasn't what we do with the time. so again, hard choices. iraq was a hard choice in the debate as to whether it was the right one will go on for years. as an american i just hope that part of the debate as i said will be less about recrimination zandt for about how the u.s. steel's responsibly with threats and challenges from abroad. >> host: siskel kuhl to maryland. angeles join in on the democratic line. >> caller: hi, i was wondering throughout history have you seen

any similar -- the middle east is a civil war have you seen through history where we've gotten involved in another civil war and another part of the world that we were successful in number one if we were successful how or week and how could there really to the current problem in the least? >> guest: that is a great question. is the middle east peaceable war? well is a range of possible conflicts. some might be characterized as that, others not. again, i think it's a very important to understand the region in its own terms and that incidentally is the foreign officers do. we know the language. we live in those areas. we know the culture and history. so, understanding what is happening in a given area and why it's happening i think is

pretty important in understanding what our options are going forward. i would not style what happened in iraq as a civil war. i think it got very close to it at the height of the secretary and violence between sunnis and shia, but else hot as the fire was it also burned out fairly quickly. again iraq doesn't have a history of sectarian conflict and iraqi is basically a revolt against the violence in the midst and think it was important for us to understand the history and that there was a fairly good prospect who that a swift and decisive intervention could

stabilize the situation and indeed it did. but again the knowledge of these complex situations and their own terms is critical. to take us back a bit to our own history, we of course fought an unbelievable liberals of the war ourselves. and that war didn't fly in fundamental historic differences among americans. it leaves unresolved issues involving the structure of our state and society and in particular the rights of states. this is part of the debate now in iraq so understanding other people's complex histories but

perhaps informed by our own and assessing how difficult the challenges are i think is always prudent. >> next phone call fort pierce florida, mike, good >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. a few things -- you look like a dear caught in the headlight. you don't look comfortable. iraq, it's not so bad we went in there, it's bad we went on a lie. this is what i don't understand, and young men and women have lost their lives. the line is that george bush and his administration told are going to pay for it for

generations. you can't make them right. >> host: ambassador crocker? >> guest: that was a comment rather than a question. i was in washington in 2002 and the beginning of to the some three and then i was in iraq just weeks after saddam hussein fell so as i look back on this side don't think we have a situation of lies or conspiracies. these were hard issues as i have tried to describe. challenges posed to the international community by saddam hussein, challenges posed to us and i've seen the assessments at the time. the assessments that the intelligence community produced pointed to the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

those weapons didn't turn out to be there but i don't believe for a net those assessments were the results of the carefully orchestrated conspiracy. they were produced by people trying to do the best they could and as i noted i think the careful look at how we didn't get it exactly right has led to american peopleess today that well. >> host: ambassador crocker, looking to the future of afghanistan, headline this morning in "the new york times" the afghan leaders have always more than just head gear as losing its cachet and they point to the fact that president karzai began wearing this hat as an attempt to devise the war broke the was afghan rather than fm or regional but there is a quote in here from an afghani saying now it is clear mr. karzai is a passion.

do you have confidence in the government, do you have concerns? >> guest: i have confidence and concerns just as i did in iraq. we have to understand the huge challenges the leaders in both of these countries face literally just in staying alive. i got to know hamid karzai when i first got to afghanistan at the beginning of 2002 when he had only been in office a few weeks himself. eight years later he's still in office facing extraordinarily challenges. and there are clearly a lot of problems and things he has to work on and things we have to do in support of him but i had the opportunity to get to know him

personally and whatever hat he may be wearing at the moment one thing i absolutely persuaded is he is an afghan national list. >> host: next on call river hit new york on the republican line. >> caller: ambassador, good morning and thank you for taking my call. i had the recent experience the third person i talked to who came from iraq mentioned to me they came from mesopotamia and blamed england for and they didn't their animosity towards us for coming over here but they felt the only way their country would survive between the shiites, the sunnis and everybody else going on was to have a dictatorship and i was wondering if you had any experience with those ideas.

>> guest: well there are as many ideas and iraq about the sheep and the direction of governments as you might find in this country. as i noted earlier, borders throughout the region are in many cases artificial but it's interesting to me those borders really haven't changed over the decades. iraqis and iranians fought and died by the hundreds of thousands during the iran-iraq were met in the 1980's to defend their borders and other nations. supporters may have been the artificial limb their inception but i think they are salles let today as the boundaries of independence states. should or can iraq be governed

by a dictator? i don't think so and i think what we are seeing is again the evolution of a pluralistic space form of government that will face considerable challenges and it's important to remember here iraq is not a stranger to democracy. in the 30's and 40's up to the 1958 revolution there was an iraqi parliament and the parliament chose a per minister -- prime ministers of mental the parliamentary democracy was overthrown in 58, there was something of a tradition of democracy in iraq. it's not simply dictatorships. >> host: ambassador ryan crocker think for your time to really appreciated. >> guest: thank you. after many years ofe here in mt public service i am just

delighted to be here at this great university and to be the dean of the school of public service has down here in texas we work to prepare america's newest generation for service to the country. >> host: come back again ambassador crocker. >> guest: thank you.

congressional budget committee to eckert douglas elmendorf today told the committee that the current budget all look as, quote, donner predicting $1.35 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2010. this hearing of the house budget committee is two and a half hours. [inaudible conversations] >> i will call the hearing to order. we meet today to consider and receive testimony from director elmendorf of the congressional budget office on the latest update on the economy and the budget. the number in the cbo report update released yesterday were

daunting to say the least. but to fully comprehend the implications of those numbers, the bottom line to the budget is important to remain -- remember the context from which the merger. the year-ago the economy was in a freefall. job loss was at 10,714,000 per month january alone. americans were determined savings accounts that plunged by 2 million by the first quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009. the record budget surplus of january, 2001 has been converted to record deficits for jobs as far as the eye could see. if president obama and this compass began to those in mind this was the context, this was the economic and fiscal legacy of the previous administration. to many americans today still feel the pain of the recession. we received news today from the testimony from dr. elmendorf that the economy we believe was

out of recession never the less is much work to be done to reveal the economy and to recover full capacity. the cbo report today confirmed the actions we've taken the last year have pulled economy back from the brink. cbo report confirms gdp will grow in 2010 and beyond and the recovery act has had a positive effect. the report also confirms the recession is taking its toll on the budget's bottom line. the folks bruseghin the comment to shore up on the bottom line. economists agree it is counterproductive to balance the budget in the midst of a deep and serious recession and rebuilding the economy provides a critical condition for deficit reduction. nevertheless, the cyclical deficits we are now facing should not and cannot persist. the short-term cyclical deficits associated with this recession should not be confused with long term fiscal challenges we will face even before the recession

began. because the long-term budget situation remains on sustainable as the economy recovers we must increasingly turn our focus to ensure the budget recovers as well. as we face our fiscal challenges i'm encouraged by the recent progress towards reinstatement of the statutory paygo model of the rule which modeled on the rules that record deficits and record surpluses in the 1990's. i was pleased to see the obama administration's recent announcement is budget proposal to be next tuesday will be characterized by the restraint in domestic discretionary spending. clearly on both the economy and the budget and steps are needed the report could stay with which we can better understand the challenges of which we face. the witness is today doug elmendorf and before turning to him for his testimony i went to thank him and the entire staff of cbo for the work they